Open main menu

Status:     Online


Please comment on Talk:Federalist SocietyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Federalist Society. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Danfrosty1 (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back...Edit

...And may there be many more resysops to come. GABgab 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks GAB. And yeah. Everybody has to do what they think is right. But IMO the emergency is over. Que appropriate sound effects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The nightmare is over! GABgab 01:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Welcome back. Thanks for asking tough, incisive questions and helping shed light on the current improving status of the crisis. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was upset to hear that you resigned, but I am glad that you are back now and you will make Wikipedia a better place. Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Glad to know that you are back. Masum Reza📞 15:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back Ad Orientem!, –Davey2010Talk 15:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you all. Hopefully we won't have to go through this again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back! To celebrate...Edit

Here's a new iteration of Wikidestruction vandal, or the "reverted some good faith edits" user, to block: 2A00:23C6:6583:1C00:3D75:F908:5414:B2A0 using their favourite edit summary too. Ss112 18:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 week. Haven't pushed that button in a while. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

MP ImageEdit

Hi Ad Orientem, I shrunk the MP Image you added to width=120, puts it more aligned with the OTD image; if there was already some discussion (I can't find one) about why this should be larger, feel free to revert! — xaosflux Talk 19:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No issues. I was actually just looking to shrink it when you beat me to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


Could you please block user:2804:431:CFF2:AF01:C91C:6A17:88C5:5C2B for vandalism. (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Having a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Blocked x 31 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
They are back under user:2804:431:cfd8:1740:195c:26f9:603e:5319 . (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Blocked and page protected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

user:2601:940:4380:490:4cc:6621:42ca:15ab just vandalized as you were responding to my report. (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention, they seem to have hit many filters. (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Late to the party, but...Edit

Welcome back, AO! While I did read the threads, I still personally don't really understand the issue as a whole. All I really know is that one administrator was blocked by an outside source, with some people agreeing with the block itself and some people disagreeing. As a basic understanding, it seems like the core of the issue is that any of the alleged issues with the administrator in question should have been handled locally on the English Wikipedia, but I'm sure it goes deeper than that. Amaury • 17:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated but you basically nailed it. The WMF was doing stuff that was widely seen as a serious threat to the traditional autonomy of the community here. There have always been a handful of areas where by mutual agreement it was understood that the WMF had jurisdiction. But their actions, which at least initially they defended, were very problematic. Without saying so directly they have effectively backed down on the most serious issue. Some of the related issues are being worked on. But the community is involved in those discussions so I don't see any immediate threat to our self governance... for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm hoping our other great admins, such as BU Rob13, who's been a huge help with a sock we've been dealing with since late September 2016, return. Amaury • 18:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately this episode is likely to have done lasting damage. At least a few editors are probably gone for good. But I too hope that most will return in time. Everybody has to obey their own conscience and do what they think right. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

People whose existence is disputedEdit

Hi, this is one of my favorite topics. Do you think this person Holy Child of La Guardia existed? I will have more questions about people whose existence is disputed coming soon. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In this case that seems doubtful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Serpentza does not live in China anymore, please revert article back to 3-4 days agoEdit

Xiaoyun64 is suspected youtube friends/peer, only contributions are for Serpentza (please investigate accoun)

Serpentza does not live in China anymore

Please see this video, at 1:22:45

Article at 11:30 he talks about moving

Wife talks about living in the USA

Serpentza Article fraud, please revert article back to 5 days ago, before Xiayun64 changesEdit

Xiaoyun64 is suspected youtube friends/peer, only contributions are for Serpentza (please investigate accoun)

Serpentza does not live in China anymore

Please see this video, at 1:22:45

Article at 11:30 he talks about moving

Wife talks about living in the USA

You may open a discussion regarding your concerns on the article talk page. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Shane Lowry (golfer)Edit

Thank you for your response on the other page. The reason I asked for protection in advance is because an incredible amount of vandalism happens to the winner's page after that winner is declared. The purpose here is to avoid the interference as we try to enter info on the winner's page, to keep time consuming and frustrasting edit conflicts from happening. I speak from past experience on this. A perfectly undisturbed athlete's Wikipedia page becomes a spam paradise for IP users when that athlete wins a major tournament. We golf editors want to be able to edit the winner's page without that kind of interference happening again, and protecting that page in advance will enable us to do that. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Johnsmith2116. I completely understand but our guidelines seriously discourage preemptive protection. It's also important to keep things in perspective. There is no damage that can be inflicted on any article that can't be reverted with a few clicks. If this gentleman should win and it looks like things are heating up, just resubmit your request. Alternatively you can always look for an admin currently online and drop them a note. Sometimes that is faster. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I've added the page to my watchlist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
An administrator has protected the page. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Johnsmith2116 I saw that. It's only for 24 hrs. I may extend it tomorrow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. .. While I'm here, this coming week, golf will have the 2019 WGC-FedEx St. Jude Invitational which also is a high profile tournament. Next Sunday we could once again need protection for the winner of that also. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

your block of user:Brusto721Edit

Already using next sock user:Mookar721 to make the same SPI redirects Meters (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Ad Orientem".